Priority follows consequence level, not channel capability

What it is

Arbitration priority should follow the event's consequence level, not the channel's expressiveness. Ranking by channel—holding vision above the rest, say—means the system allocates attention by implementation order rather than user interest. Events with heavier consequences deserve earlier processing.

Why it happens

Channel-based ranking mistakes a technical property for a value judgment. Vision can express more detail, but that does not make visual events more important; likewise, touch carrying less information does not mean it can only serve minor events. Consequence-based ranking aligns directly with user interest: consequences requiring immediate action get precedence in attention, and the rest queue or degrade. Implementing it requires consequence labels at event modeling, which also makes the rule auditable instead of hidden in call order.

Studying it

Compare the two orderings: build scenarios where consequence level and channel are uncorrelated, order by consequence and by channel respectively, and measure delivery latency, loss rate, and users' judgment of the priority. Variables include the consequence distribution, channel pairing, and concurrency. Include a reasonableness rating, since it shows whether ordering matched expectations.

Where it stops holding

When consequence levels are hard to assess, channel ordering is a fallback approximation whose limits should be stated. If an event can only be expressed on a particular channel, consequence ordering must be combined with that constraint, lest an inexpressible event jump the queue and stall. With events of similar consequence, the ordering rule matters little.

Applying it

• Label each event with a consequence level at modeling time and base ordering rules on those labels.
• Avoid using channel type as the ordering criterion unless its consequence rationale is also stated.
• When an event can only be expressed on one channel, write that constraint into the arbitration rule.
• Verification: in scenarios where consequence and channel are uncorrelated, measure delivery latency and loss for critical events and confirm ordering follows consequence.

Related

• Within the group: D5.06.1 Simultaneous multichannel output needs arbitration rules · D5.06.4 Arbitration must handle queueing and dropping among simultaneous events
• Adjacent: D2.10.1 Simultaneous alarms need arbitrated ordering, not overlapping playback · D3.08.3 The haptic budget should follow event importance
• Search terms: priority rule · consequence severity · attention allocation